LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Locus Standi — Distinction Between Personal Action and Representative Action in Chieftaincy Matters

"The situation here is completely different from what gave rise to the decision and the principle therein laid down by this court in Momoh v. Olotu (supra) in regard to locus standi. At page 127 of the Report, Ademola, CJN observed: 'Plaintiff has not claimed that he has a standing in this matter which entitles him to bring an action; or that he is representing a certain ruling family in this matter whose interests are affected and who are to be benefited by the declaration sought in the writ or that his existing right or his family's existing right has been infringed… Mr. Ayoola for the plaintiff agreed before us that since the action was not instituted as a representative action, the court cannot take notice of paragraph 2 of the statement of claim and that this is purely a personal action. On that score, we fail to see the position of the plaintiff, who cannot say, and has not alleged, that his personal rights have been infringed.' That is not the position in the present case as has been shown by the nature of the averments in the statement of claim and of the claim itself. The grievance of the Ruling House in question showing how its rights have been infringed forms the foundation of the action."